Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The Game Fails to Present a Compelling Setting

I fail to comprehend which part of the quote you drove that conclusion from.

Strawman much?

Couldn't of said it any better.
And most people enjoying BG3 seems to despise BG1 and BG2, or straight up fail to acknowledge both games existence lol.
Move on? Evolve? Ok then DONT CALL IT BG3. I feel I got scammed selling me the third game of an amazing CRPG, but instead got D&D dressing over DOS3.

I think this is partially WotC's fault. The storyline picks up right after Descent Into Avernus, which was a problematic module at best. Many theorise that Baldur's Gate itself was supposed to be dragged into Avernus, but WotC chickened out and made it Elturel instead. The whole first act of DIA is set in BG for no reason, other than people love/have heard of BG. So Zevlor telling us that they're refugees from Elturel means almost nothing.

Even then, I can't think of any 5E module that does a good job of taking advantage of the setting. Faerun really hasn't gotten a lot of love in 5E, we have a little on the Sword Coast and that's it. Not saying Larian can't do better, but remember they're doing this with WotC's involvement and blessing, such as it is.

Especially because the full title of that module is "Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus" xD

It was really baffling to play through. All the setup in Act 1 in BG getting to know the factions and personalities involved, then suddenly you’re in Avernus and supposed to care about the city Elturel, that you practically know nothing about? Either drag BG to hell, or start the campaign in Elturel!

EDIT: It almost feels like WotC is hesitant to commit to anything too drastic with Faerun, after how poorly received the Spellplague was (and had to be basically retconned with the Second Sundering). That or they're just making everything super generic so it doesn't matter what the setting is.

The narrative around both 4e and 5e is rather questionable/difficult in my opinion. Most of the world environment makes sense to me because I played the AD&D and D&D2e games tabletop, as well as D&D2e and D&D3e on PC. The history and geography are still the same ( well, not all the geography ), the monsters races and classes are all just about still recognizable, so I only need a few blanks filled in, which the game does well with books and conversations focussed around the salient storylines.

I think it would be hard to give a worldview that ALL characters would know; anyone from Baldur's gate, regardless of race, would have a certain body of knowledge, but a Drow, say, just up from the Underdark would have a completely different background knowledge. Even within a race, the understanding of a sage or noble would be very different from a thug or urchin.

If Larian do want to add immersive background flavour, I think an extensive book list is the easiest route. It does not require the level of resources that conversations would require, and reading books is elective, so the player can choose what to learn about.

As I'm sure most people know already, WolfheartFPS, the youtube streamer that appeared in PFH 5 has a narrated playthrough of the Descent into Avernus 5e module that directly preceeds BG3. I found that very useful for setting the immediate background of BG3.

Who knows, maybe we’ll get a cutscene at the start that sets the scene by showing the descent of Elturel and what happened after. Even people who have played the module probably aren’t familiar with the canon anyway since there are different outcomes (we failed to save the city in our game!)

Yes, you do:


You say, in this post that 36 years is an entire human lifetime. There's a lot of failing to comprehend going on, but sorry, I read the thread to that point, and responded to what you have said. No need for a strawman, you provided this nonsensical stuff yourself.

robertthebard,

Ohhh. I was talking about the characters, not the players, ya big numpty. Our characters (especially if you create a human, even though nobody really does it) don't look like they have spent several decades establishing their business and going from rags to riches. Even elves look noticeably younger than Halsin, for example, although I have no idea how old he actually is.

Suppose a human Urchin starts making some money at 18. Could be earlier, but probably not if it's a legitimate business. 18 + 36 = 54. Do our characters look like they are 54? Not in the slightest. I didn't mean they can't survive long enough to have it, I meant they can't have such a long life and still look like they're 25. At this point, their age should be obvious.

Btw I'm not exactly a teenager myself, but if you are looking for any excuse to feel offended, go on, who am I to stop you?..

Not really looking to "be offended". It's extremely easy to get rich quick just running through what we have in EA, how is it going to be any different in an established zone? This ignores, of course, the fact that if one doesn't think a specific background is immersive, they aren't forced to take it. If you can't find a way for an urchin to strike it rich, or for a noble to play at being the urchin, you're free to choose something you can wrap your head around. As I said earlier, I had no issue at all running a Human or Dwarven Noble as a rogue in Dragon Age. It's no different here. Just as it's no different in any game franchise you'd care to bring up, where the appropriate class archetypes apply anyway. All that's required is to allow yourself to define your character, instead of waiting for Larian, or someone else, to do it for you.

Let's start with your artificial limitation of "starting at 18". Why? Why didn't the Urchin start much earlier? It's not like we don't have an example of that in EA right now, in the Grove. Larian's given you an out, right? If some Tiefling children can find a way, surely your own character could as well. This requires a bit of creativity on your part, although not much, as I said, Larian has provided an archetype for you to follow, if that's what you need. It could well be that Tav was successful before they ever hit 18. All that's required is for the player to "write that in" to the backstory. If it's being a successful thief, it's highly probable that the guards wouldn't know who you are, that's what being successful would mean, or part of it anyway. This is exactly the reason I prefer a blank slate character to a pre-defined one. I get to make those choices, instead of having to play someone else's ideal.

All of the backgrounds are RP-able, if one takes the time to actually RP them. That's the idea in an RPG, after all. So people fussing that "this doesn't make sense" need to evaluate what they're expecting in an RPG. The mere existence of something that "doesn't add up" for you doesn't invalidate it. It just means that you need to look at some of the other backgrounds to find something that fits with what you've decided to artificially limit yourself to. Because the limitations are artificial. You created them, and you have to either overcome them, or pick something that doesn't offend your sensibilities.

robertthebard,

Even if they start, like Tiefling kids, at 8, that's still quite an age which I don't see in our characters. When I look in the mirror, it's right there, and there's no way to hide it.

Also, I don't think DA example is relevant here. I didn't play Origins, but in both DA 2 and Inquisition the Rogue is a completely suitable and respectable profession for anyone. First, because Rogues there aren't really rogues in the DnD sense, and second, because in DA everything goes as long as you are not a Mage.

The best way to describe my stance on the topic is probably this: moving between different social strata always generated intense hatred in medieval societies (which FR is based on). Nouveau riche are generally despised everywhere, and by everyone. An Urchin who bought themselves into a noble district will have lots of tension with their neighbours. Similarly, a Noble who lost their fortune and now has to (somehow!) live alongside paupers, will be equally loathed (by both their neighbours and other nobles).

If Larian is smart, they can use this aspect to add a twist to Tav's story once we reach Baldur's Gate. That would be tremendous. However, I don't see them to be particularly interested in creating a deep, complex storyline for our custom character.

That would be because the main game is the story for the main character, whether that character is Tav or not. I do not want to play Geralt of Baldur's Gate, if I wanted that, I could roll with one of the Origin characters. I want Tav to be a blank slate, allowing me to fill in those blanks. Allow me to counter "but in real life" with one fantasy/fictional example: Robin Hood. No, I'm not suggesting that one has to role play to that archetype, but, just because something doesn't add up in real life doesn't mean it can't work in a fantasy setting. I cannot, for the life of me, remember the last time I went and slayed a dragon because it was eating my cattle, or that I went sewer diving because I was broke.

So, you can suspend your disbelief enough to slay dragons, and meet people that can throw magical balls of force from their fingers, or maybe throw them yourself, but you can't suspend it for a Noble playing at Street Urchin, or a Street Urchin becoming a successful thief? That's not a flaw in game design. This is a self-imposed limitation. Full circle to my original point here, I don't want a predefined Tav, that's why it's a custom character. The predefined roles/characters exist in the form of Origin characters, if that's what one is looking for. What they did before the start of the game, and how they did it is, and should be, entirely on me to define. I don't know if it's funny, or sad, that after decades of reading "I don't want to play the developer's character", I'm now seeing "I want Larian to define Tav for me".

Just for fun though, take a look at how many possible Tavs there are in character creation. How many years do you imagine it would take to write "satisfying" backstories for all of them? That's every class, every choice that can be made within each class, every background, and every possible combination thereof. As an aside to that, we don't even have all the possible races and classes that could show up in the final game yet, so it gets even worse as we pile them on. Now imagine the outrage if they just shoehorned every possible choice into a handful of possible backstories. I'm thinking the dumpster fire from that would overshadow anything these forums have seen to date. However, that would be the "best bet" to predefine Tav, given the sheer number of possible stories that are there, just in character creation. At some point it is, and should be, up to the player to fill in some blanks. It should be up to the player to determine why their warlock Tav went with this deity instead of that one, instead of expecting Larian to explain it for them.

I mean, have you read any FR novels? Adventurers are not upstarts, they are a vital neccessity that are generally accepted by all social strata. Kings and kingdoms don't always love adventurers wandering around getting into trouble, but even Cormyr, one ot the strictest kingdoms in regards to adventurers, simply put limitations on them. When some random group of adventurers appears out of the nowhere and saves the day once, it's a fluke, but when it happens regularly, which it does in the Realms, then it becomes an institution. It also helps when said random adventurer may very well be an arch mage or other high level class. A level 12 warrior doesn't get spit on in the slums, they get avoided or catered to, regardless of what social strata they originated from, an urchin who becomes an arch mage is an arch mage, and his origins no longer matter, because that arch mage can single handedly repell an invasion. Sure, in the low and mid levels there can be some tension, even in the high levels there may be whispers and cold shoulders, but the thing about high level characters is that they can litterally crush armies as a party and drive dragons into their enemies. Wealth and status are a type of power, but real power garners wealth and status.

It should also be pointed out that your character isn't the first adventurer to walk the land. The path he walks has been paved by those who walked it before him. There are many many powerful people who have created organizations that look out for adventurers as a whole politically because they see them as a vital resource in culling back the darkness and in providing early warning for potential calamyties. It should also be pointed out that several of the gods, in the FR were previously adventurers themselves, and as such, the temples generally favor adventurers of like alignment, or now I suppose I should say temperment.

Dustmen,

I think you got it the wrong way around. Here is the link to my post that started this particular branch of discussion: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=807151#Post807151

What I'm talking about is the situation when our Tavs finally reach Baldur's Gate and find their old home. In this context, "old" means the home where they lived before the events of the game have started. That is, they weren't even Level 1 adventurers back then, they weren't adventurers at all! Noble was a noble, Urchin was doing their urchin stuff, etc.

Now, if Larian: 1) will even bother creating the "Tav's old home" plot line to begin with, and 2) will decide to use the same building in the same place regardless of character's particulars (Githyanki Acolyte, anyone?), there will be a situation when a Noble comes to a shanty hut in the middle of nowhere, and says "And this is my home! Nice to see it still stands." I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. Even in real life, such a plot reeks of Bollywood's clichés; in FR, this is outright nonsense.

Of course, if we will be able to buy ourselves a home when we will be around level 10, that would be a completely different matter. But it's not what I was talking about.

Ahh, in that case, Larian could just set aside several different homes in different areas of the city as you suggested. Depending on which background the player chose would determine which home would belong to the player. The other homes would just be abandoned structures that could be investigated and plundered should you find them. This doesn't have to be all that complicated. Someone with an urchin background would likely live in a flophouse type structure, the noble would live on the outskirts of the noble area, the artisan in the mercantile section, etc. Even BG1 had enough random buildings to have pulled that off should the player character have originated in Baldurs Gate. Sure, it means that Larian would have to create a backstory for each location, and have only one backstory instance in each play trough depending on what background was chosen, but it may be the best answer to the problem. I don't think they should create NPCs to generate quests or family/friends to sidetrack th player with drama that isn't neccessary though. The noble section you might find a note to Tav suggesting that the family relocated to Waterdeep temporarily until things settled down, the artisan district you might find from a neighbor that the merchant you worked for had joined a caravan to Amn and wasn't expected back in the near future, the urchin could just be give the rough side of the flop house matrons tongue and told in no uncertain terms he was no longer welcome after missing all that rent and that his bed was already occupied.

That is the solution, do I really think that Larian will bother? No, not really.

I see no reason why they couldn't make a quest or questline for each character background, even if its something as little as what amounts to a guided tour of BG.

It would be better to have a new place to call home. This could be the same place for everyone, or we pick from a small number of options in different areas depending on what we like the most, not on our background. Nowhere in character creation does it tell us that we have to be from Baldur's Gate and it would be rather jarring to find out that we lived there in Act 2 when we spent all of Act 1 thinking we could be from somewhere else and picking the dialogue options without the Baldurian tag accordingly. Now if in character creation they change the description in all the backgrounds to indicate that we must all be from there (or near there I guess for Outlander?) then they could do the different homes in different areas, but I think that would be too much work when they could be doing other things.

I would rather they don't do much at all with the backgrounds since there are not nearly enough options and also people rp them differently. A guided tour option for everyone would be a good idea though, or maybe different quests that take us to all the different areas.

I see your point. In this case they could have the domicile quest triggered by dialog options that indicate the player calls BG home. For those who don't trigger the dialog option they could have a couple of the options that would have triggered available for the character. BUt yes, the easiest way to deal with that part would be a check box in the character creator that can be selected to indicate whether or not you were a resident of BG.

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up as semi-permanent residents at one of the two taverns mentioned, the Elfsong and...the other one, especially considering they're mentioned a few times by people expecting to meet us again.

By saying we'd get background specific quests I didn't necessarily mean quests dealing with our history, but more like when Geralt was given the run around in Novigrad to get a blacksmith to work on a sword...something that gets us moving around and meeting people through the lens of our background.

But we should have some history in BG, considering coming from there is the default for every character, even Outlanders.